As Fogel points out they are about average with the FA 43 being = to the Nikon. The 77 a tad smaller than the 85, and the 31 larger than anything its equivalent.

Ergo they have no distinction in the market when it comes to form factor. They are about what one might expect from a premium, fast glass from the late film era.

The DA Ltd's are, OTOH, quite different.

Save the 40mm which has traditionally been a pancake (in the 45mm FL as well) the 15, 21, and 70 are all designs unique to Pentax. They create a small system no other brand in DSLR's has. I pull my 15, 21, 40 or 70 out and people think I am shooting a mirrorless or bridge camera, especially on the diminutive K-x. You won't get that with the 31 or 77.

With the FA Ltd's we start talking about 'pixie dust' and other subjective criteria. With the DA Ltd's we measure and weigh objectively. No, they aren't fast as in sub-f/2 apertures, which was what was complained about. You cannot have a wide aperture and a line of 22-105mm pancake primes (135 eq.). ISOless sensors up to 3200 have made a lot of the need for bigger, faster glass moot, especially if you want a small form factor. The FA Ltd's don't even fit into that class, where the DA Ltd's actually can go H2H with some m43 or Fuji X glass.

I don't know how I missed that post, but I see your point.

I still find the 43mm is still quite small, its only thicker than the 40mm DA by the aperture ring, so to me it's still tiny. It's smaller than any Nikon lens I own thats for sure.

If you compare digital lenses to digital lenses the DA's are still incredibly compact but quite slow. Theres got to be a way to increase the size minimally on the DA40 for example to increase lens speed. Especially keeping screw drive.

Even if we got updates to the FA's with new coatings and they didn't change in size much I would be extremely happy. I own all three, but I'd upgrade if they had better CA/pF control

...Theres got to be a way to increase the size minimally on the DA40 for example to increase lens speed. Especially keeping screw drive .

The only way would be to increase the iris. From 2.8 to f/2 would add considerable mass like the FA 43 and more iris diameter. At that point you start getting into frame edge issues critical on digital sensors. That is why newer lenses are usually larger than old film era ones. And larger glass = more cost and as we all know prices are already in stupidville. Heavier glass also equals slower AF, especially with screw drive.

You simply will not get "minimal" design changes to milk a few mm's of DOF. Not worth it to lose the pancake selling point. I think Pentax already milked the lenses as us with the oddball 3.2 and 2.4 in the 21 and 70. The 21 is IMO an f/4 lens and the 70 a 2.8. Wide open there is discernible softness, but a single click ~1/3 stopping down and they snap in sharp and are glorious. And so, so, so compact and low mass on my K-x.

The only way would be to increase the iris. From 2.8 to f/2 would add considerable mass like the FA 43 and more iris diameter. At that point you start getting into frame edge issues critical on digital sensors. That is why newer lenses are usually larger than old film era ones. And larger glass = more cost and as we all know prices are already in stupidville. Heavier glass also equals slower AF, especially with screw drive.

You simply will not get "minimal" design changes to milk a few mm's of DOF. Not worth it to lose the pancake selling point. I think Pentax already milked the lenses as us with the oddball 3.2 and 2.4 in the 21 and 70. The 21 is IMO an f/4 lens and the 70 a 2.8. Wide open there is discernible softness, but a single click ~1/3 stopping down and they snap in sharp and are glorious. And so, so, so compact and low mass on my K-x.

Ok I think I understand now. However, why do you keep saying the FA 43 is considerably larger than the DA40, I own both and find them very similar in size with the FA being slightly heavier. The extra little length of the lens I think is a non issue

Ok I think I understand now. However, why do you keep saying the FA 43 is considerably larger than the DA40, I own both and find them very similar in size with the FA being slightly heavier. The extra little length of the lens I think is a non issue

FA43 has an aperture ring. To make DA40 really small, Pentax removed the aperture ring of the SMC 40/2.8, further optimised its optical performance. The aperture in all DA Limiteds, as a consequence of the quest for ultimate small footprint, is controlled electronically.

To increase aperture of the DA40 to f2, more glass will be required. In 135 format terms, smallest lenses are possible at around the diagonal size of the format, 40-45mm. I think Pentax has chosen to remake SMC 40/2.8 into a digital lens rather than bother with FA43 for APS-C. Firstly because of the duplication of the cost.

Namely, I believe they had hoped that FA43 is already so well made that it can be used on a possible FF camera without any upgrade — the old SMC 40/2.8 from 1970's wasn't quite up to the digital challenge, and so they've redesigned it into a DA40 — to spend least amount of time, and money, test own abilities in miniaturisation, and deliver cheaper alternative that is still of excellent quality. We can think of DA40 as a purposefully recycled design.

I find DA40 to be an excellent lens, and because it is a longer normal lens on APS-C cameras, I use it as a portraiture lens.

If the Limited zoom is HD why not the 16~85? Both are green on the roadmap. The Limited zoom will be a HD lens like newly updated Limiteds; thats pretty obvious. Note that the DA 560 is not a "*" lens maybe because the "*" designation is about to be faded out. Hence, the 16-85 could be a HD lens and not "downgraded" at all.

That's a possibility, but a premium line of zooms is a useful marketing tool. Fading out the * line would perhaps indicate either Pentax doesn't want to play at the high end any more or that they are not concerned about marketing premium zooms by nomenclature and just on price and features.

That's a possibility, but a premium line of zooms is a useful marketing tool. Fading out the * line would perhaps indicate either Pentax doesn't want to play at the high end any more or that they are not concerned about marketing premium zooms by nomenclature and just on price and features.

If this is the case then they will replace * with AW, which probably makes it easier for marketing as they will use the same naming on lenses for all systems.

No, DA* is DA*, not AW.
DA* is an older generation lenses that most likely will be replaced by DA AW.
As long as DA* lenses do not include "AW" in the name of the lens they are not AW, but they have the same pro specification as AW lenses.